Cars 2 now has some company in that car-hole of disappointment. Cars 3 is as bad as Cars 2, but in whole new ways.

Returning its focus to the racetrack, Cars 3 centres on cocksure racing champion Lightning McQueen (Wilson), whose winning ways become a thing of the past thanks to the arrival of the next generation of automobiles, as personified by Jackson Storm (Hammer).

Despite everyone telling him he should call it a day, Lightning is convinced he still has what it takes to be a winner and sets about recapturing his past glories, with a little from personal trainer Cruz (Alonzo) and old-timer Smokey (Cooper).

Cars 3's biggest crime is it's boring. It feels overly long and uninteresting for huge stretches, particularly its opening 10 or 15 minutes. An horrific crash sequence is done well and livens things up momentarily before the film returns to being boring again.

With the second act largely dedicated to a protracted series of training montages - first the new way of race training, then the old-school way - it's not until the final act that the film goes up a gear. There is a nice reversal on expectation that helps make things interesting, even if it almost makes everything that preceded it redundant. But by then it's too little, too late, and your care factor will have already driven off into the sunset.

The strangest thing about Cars 3 is that its main theme is a bafflingly bad choice for a kids film. The whole story is about knowing when to retire, admitting that you're past it, accepting the limitations of age with good grace, and moving on to the next phase of your life with dignity. Its doubtful that theme would appeal to a single kid in their target demographic. Even the parents might struggle to empathise with that. For some weird reason, the Pixar brain trust has come up with a plot that specifically appeals to the grandparents who might be taking their grandchildren to the movies.

It's not that Pixar haven't delved into challenging themes before, but never with such exclusivity. It's perplexing how they could have got it so wrong. There is a subplot centring on Cruz, which is far more interesting and is more likely to connect with youngsters, but it only comes to the fore toward the film's end. Up until then, it feels like a movie a bunch of old men made to please themselves, not their audience.

As with Cars 2, Cars 3 is not funny, charming or quirky enough to make it worth its run time or to overcome its story defects. Only its ending and a demolition derby sequence bring the film to life.

Given the insane amounts of money Pixar made from merchandising on the other Cars films, its unlikely this will be the last we see of Lightning McQueen. But from a critical standpoint, it's definitely time to take this franchise to the wreckers.

Sunday, 18 June 2017

In the beginning, New Zealand journalist David Farrier hoped to do a story about "competitive endurance tickling". As a subject, it ticked a lot of boxes for Farrier - the inherent wackiness and absurdity was right up his lighthearted alley.

But his inquiries to the media company behind the competition drew a bizarre response, and so began Farrier's dark and disturbing journey down an internet rabbit hole that you have to see to believe. What he'd initially hoped to do as a two-minute bit for TV suddenly became a crowdfunded documentary with co-producer credit for Stephen Fry.

Tickled's subject matter is so incredible, unpredictable, and weird that it seems too good to be true, but it's also too incredible, unpredictable and weird to be a mockumentary. This is the doco's appeal - that you won't believe what you're seeing, but you have no other option.

The unusual story and the things Farrier and co-director Reeve uncover along the way help paper over any directorial, pacing, editing or structural issues. It's so gripping that its annoyances are easily ignored. To be fair, its practical flaws aren't deal-breakers, but Farrier and Reeve definitely benefit from their subject matter.

As a host, Farrier is like New Zealand's answer to Louis Theroux. They share the same pleasantly bewildered naivety, although it must be said Farrier comes across as more of a regular dude than Theroux.

The less you know about this doco going into it, the better. But rest assured this is a bizarrely gripping, oddly hilarious, and downright disturbing glimpse into a level of weird you didn't even know existed.

To coincide with the release of Cars 3, I've thrown together this list of Pixar movies, arranging them from best to worst. Why? Because it says here in my copy of The Film Reviewer's Guide To Being A Know-It-All Jerk that I'm supposed to do regular film lists, thus creating debate, disgust, and angry anonymous comments from people with poor grammar and their caps lock key stuck in the 'on' position.

In actual fact I love movie lists (and there's going to be a lot more of these happening on this site in the future because woooooo party time!).

But I really love Pixar. They get movie-making. They regularly make other animation studios look like a bunch of monkeys hurling faeces at a screen. I mean, have you seen the Ice Age movies?

Not pictured: faeces.

As a production house, Pixar are the pinnacle in any kind of film-making because their strike rate is incredible - in fact, I'd go so far as to say there is only one bad film on this list. The rest, from #14 up, range from good to perfect. In fact, I love Pixar so much that despite the one bad film being Cars 2, I'm still super-pumped for Cars 3 because, godsdammit, it's Pixar.

Why are they so good? On top of the fact they have great characters doing interesting stuff and saying wonderful things, Pixar make films that are endlessly rewarding. Watch almost any of these films once every year from the age of 5 to 50 and you will get something new out of it every time. Plus you will be entertained. Even more importantly, you will be moved - just about all of these films have a tearjerker moment in them that hits you right in the feels (which I'm led to believe is somewhere near the large intestine).

Without further ado, I present to you the definitive ranking of Pixar movies from best to least best. Ready your caps lock key, internet.

1. Inside Out

Is this a controversial selection for #1? I'm not sure. I think you're supposed to have controversial selections when making "best movies of ever blah blah" lists. Either way, who cares, this is the best Pixar movie hands down. The script for this is one of the most remarkable I have ever seen. How they managed to set a film inside a young girl's brain and have her emotions be the main characters while simultaneously telling one of the ultimate coming-of-age stories ... well, that blows my mind. It's incredibly deep yet hilarious, realistic yet fantastic, thoughtful but told simply. It is as appealing to young uns (with its bright moving zaniness and wacky characters like Bing Bong) as it is to grown-ups - in fact, this is a grown-ups movie dressed up as a kiddie cartoon. Never has a film expressed the scariness and uncertainty of leaving childhood and entering young adulthood so poignantly or precisely.

2. Wall-E

One of the fundamentals of screenwriting is the adage "Show, don't tell". Pixar take this idea to pre-talkie extremes in this tale of a robot with a heart of gold, giving us what is effectively a silent movie with a prescient, quasi-satirical view of humanity. It's Chaplin does CG-sci-fi. The layers in this are incredible. It's a love story, a ramshackle space-capade, and a chilling warning about where we're heading as a species. And, as with all Pixar films, it's abundantly hilarious and heartwarming. Like Inside Out, this is one of the key Pixar movies that unfurls new nuances as you get older, making it the gift that keeps on giving. Its charms are abundant, no matter what age you are. And at its centre lies Wall-E, the greatest robot ever committed to celluloid. He has more character in one worn-out track tread than most modern movie creations. He's adorable, witless and incredibly sympathetic as he goes about his soul-crushingly pointless job in between falling in love and re-watching his favourite movie ad infinitum. Wall-E is all of us.

3. Toy Story trilogy

I'm cheating here because I can't/don't wanna separate the Toy Story films. It's a line-call as to which is the best (it's Toy Story 3), because all of them are astoundingly good. As a whole, they comprise one of the greatest trilogies of all time. The original set the benchmark for Pixar's storytelling, and they haven't let up since. Again, it's that mixture of emotion and humour, but the understanding of character is at its peak here. Even the villains are well-rounded - Stinky Pete and Lots-o'-Huggin' are wonderful creations that in lesser hands would be, well, cartoonish. But check out the way Woody and Buzz grow across the series yet remain true to their roots. It's always perfect and honest for the character, and it makes them real and it makes us care about them, so when they appear to be sliding slowly towards their dooms and they hold hands, well, only some kind of inhuman monster would be devoid of tears. Each film is layered and thematically rich - case in point being part 3's letting-go-of-childhood substory. Pair it with Inside Out and it's almost as if Pixar is trying to help kids grow up, learn, and become well-rounded humans. What a bunch of swells.

4. The Incredibles

I've banged on a lot about character and emotion and all that crap in the first three entries of this list, so let's take them for granted for now, leave them to one side, and examine a couple of other film-making things that can make movies exemplary. Like say the score and the production design. Of all the Pixar films, The Incredibles has the best of both these things (which is saying something). Michael Giacchino's retro-futuristic soundtrack perfectly matches the retro-futurism of the costumes, sets and colour palette, which are also perfect, and, well, the whole damn thing is perfect. The Incredibles happens to be one of the greatest superhero movies of all time, bundling together a lot of great super-ideas into one super-film - the banning of superheros from Watchmen, the family's power set mirroring The Fantastic Four, a whole lot of early 007 vibes, in particular Syndrome's volcano lair. It's a loving tribute, silly send-up, and spot-on satire of superheroes, all rolled into one wonderful film about the importance of family, honesty, and not wearing capes.

5. Up

Have said before, will say again - the opening four-minute montage of Up, in which we see Carl and Ellie's marriage through the ages, is a minor miracle of film and one of the greatest sequences in the history of cinema. Like love itself, it is beautiful and bittersweet, empowering and disheartening, and it never fails to make me get something in both eyes simultaneously. It's so good, it almost overshadows the rest of the film, which is a wonderfully wacky and absurd adventure. I have no idea how this film was pitched - it has the feel of about a dozen half-baked ideas thrown into one pot, stirred and seasoned until holy-crap-this-actually-tastes-incredible. A balloon-house, a talking dog, a grumpy widower, an annoying bird, an overzealous boy scout, the golden age of adventuring, unfinished business, the power of grief, the need to let go .... it's all smooshed together into something that really shouldn't work. But it does. Up is the cinematic equivalent of the nightcap you make at the end of the party from the leftover bits of alcohol in every bottle that somehow hits the spot. And it's a remarkable thing to behold.

6. Monsters, Inc.

All Pixar movies are funny, but Monsters, Inc. is the funniest. Why is that? Two words - Billy fricking Crystal. No one could have voiced Mike Wazowki better, so we should be weirdly thankful for that fact Crystal turned down the role of Buzz Lightyear and instead took on the part of Sully's one-eyed tennis ball-shaped buddy in Pixar's fourth outing some six years later. Another thing Monsters, Inc. does better than its Pixar cohorts is worldbuild. All of the films exist in worlds that are fully realised, but none are as inventive as the Monsters, Inc. world. It's a simple mirror to our own in a lot of ways, and largely played for laughs, but it has such a natural flow and feel to it that you forget how wickedly clever it is. The doors, Boo, the scare energy, the toxicity of humans - all these things make sense in such a short period of time thanks to a sharp script, making it easier to relax into the humour and story. And once again, it has heart. Sully and Mike are great as a pair, but it's the connection between Boo and Sully that will have you getting something in both eyes simultaneously.

7. Finding Nemo

I know, I know - this is a long way down the list. But look at the quality above it. And we're still most definitely in five-star territory here - numbers 1-8 are bona fide five-star films in my book. So don't take Finding Nemo's appearance at #7 as any kind of slight. This is a great movie. It's damn near perfect. What's interesting about Nemo is that it feels deceptively simple when stacked up against its cohorts on this list - it's a straightforward road movie, except the road is actually an ocean and the travellers just happen to be fish. But, like I said, deceptively simple. In reality this is about ability (Nemo's special flipper), letting go (Marlin's neurosis), and a very powerful connection between father and son. Let's not forget this is a comedy though, coming close second to Monsters, Inc. in the laughter stakes, but for all its whale impersonations and hilarious recovering-addict sharks, once again, it's the emotion in Marlin's journey that makes this work. As much as it's called Finding Nemo, really it's about Marlin finding himself and who he needs to be as a dad. And that's deep. Like an ocean. Whoa.

8. Ratatouille

I gotta come clean - I didn't like Ratatouille the first time I saw it. Maybe it caught me on an off night. Maybe it was the sight of a kitchen teeming with rats. Maybe it was the fact a lot of the main characters have American accents despite it being set in France. Whatever it was, it didn't sit right with me. The second time I saw it though, I got it. It hit home in a big way and I berated myself for not appreciating this mini-masterpiece about dreaming the impossible dream. It's not quite Up-crazy but its oddball premise - a rat wants to be a chef and he marionettes a human to achieve his goal - is endearing, goofy and bizarrely inspiring. It's a strange film, but it works because of its humour and its passion and its precise tone. Remy (wonderfully voiced by funnyman Patton Oswalt) is an incredible character too - he's the perfect straight man (or rat as it were) in a funny world. He just ploughs through life as though he's running in mid-air and if he looks down, he'll fall, so he doesnt. Ratatouille also boasts one of the most amazing scenes in any Pixar film. It's the moment when the critic Ego tastes the make-or-break dish and is transported back to his youth. It speaks to the power of food, art, nostalgia and the innocence of childhood (and shows that critics aren't entirely inhuman monsters), and it all comes about via a scene in which a man eats a bowl of food. This is just one example of the Pixar brains trust's supreme gifts as master storytellers.

9. Finding Dory

The most mind-blowing aspect of this 13-years-later sequel is the way it re-examines Dory's memory problems, flipping them from being a running joke in the first film to the debilitating disability they would actually be in real life. And thus the title of Finding Dory becomes not just about Marlin and Nemo's quest to locate their lost friend, but representative of the film's attempt to understand Dory's character and how she finds her way in the world. She becomes a kind of tragic hero - the fish with a sad past and a disability, overcoming incredible odds to save the day and herself. It's not a new thing for Pixar - this is Nemo's special flipper all over again, but writ larger and with more gravitas. Much of the kudos for this must go to Ellen DeGeneres. Her voicing of Dory is nothing short of magnificent, wringing every possible bit of humour and pathos out of a character that blossoms from hilarious one-note gag to satisfying full-realisation in her own film. The only downside is the feelings of deja vu from first film to sequel, and an OTT ending that is fun but, well, OTT.Read my full review here.

10. Brave

In a world severely lacking in bold and inspiring cinematic heroines, Brave was a breath of fresh air. It still is. Merida remains one of the most compelling characters in the Pixar catalogue. She's a bundle of contradictions, flaws and annoyances, but that's what makes her great - she's a real person, fully formed in all her frustrating and furiously driven glory. Ditto for her mother Queen Elinor, and together they make a great pairing as the film explores the trials and tribulations many mother-daughter combos can surely relate to. But beyond that, Brave is an exhilarating ride, despite its weird structure (it's more a film of two halves as opposed to three acts, which throws the pacing off, plus there is no villain because all Merida's problems are of her own creation, but hey, I can live with that). It's also strangely familiar, yet utterly fresh. It's not in the five-star league, but it's not far off.

11. A Bug’s Life

Pixar's second film feels like the forgotten puppy in the litter, but its one that deserves a re-examination. It's a simple, well-worn story - the pretend heroes save the village and become real heroes (see also Galaxy Quest and Three Amigos) - but it wears its tropes well, feeling like some subtle new variation on one of Aesop's fable (possibly called The Grasshopper and The Octopus or something, I don't know). Whatever - this is classic, if unambitious, storytelling done right. Flick is a solid hero, his sidekicks are great (it's hard to go past Heimlich the caterpillar for comedy value), and the film boasts one of Pixar's greatest villains in Kevin Spacey's Hopper. A Bug's Life is traditional, old-timey tale-telling, but it does everything right.

12. Cars

Unlike most of the rest of the Pixar catalogue, Cars feels like solid kids entertainment, as opposed to something for the whole family. Yes, there is a certain appeal in seeing Paul Newman as a car, and us old-timers can get a kick out of the "listen to the old-timers" subtext, but so much of Cars feels like good clean kiddie fun and not much else (except a licence to sell a truckload of merch). That's not to say Cars is bad - it's really quite good at what it does, and achieves what it sets out to do, which is to be entertaining in a fast, funny, and friendly way. Its layers are fewer and its story is somewhat simpler and unambitious, but there's nothing wrong with that.

13. The Good Dinosaur

There's nothing exactly wrong with The Good Dinosaur (expect for the fact the dinosaurs look weird and cartoonish against a photoreal world) it's just that like Cars and, to a certain extent, Finding Nemo, it's so damned simple. This is boy-and-dog (except it's dinosaur-and-boy) do Homeward Bound and it's funny and heartwarming and slightly offbeat, but it never feels like anything truly special. It labours its message about the need to be brave to make your mark in the world and flies perilously close to being cliched. The film still works and features a few killer scenes, but it's good without being Pixar good.

14. Monsters University

Pixar does a college movie, but who are they aiming it at? Sure, the kids that grew up on Monsters, Inc. were probably in university by the time this prequel rolled around, but this G-rated cliched college mash-up felt like a swing and miss. Little kids won't get half it, it's not edgy enough for the collegiate crew, and even the grown-ups might have been stretching to love it. Packed with tired tropes that it's never able to subvert or do anything other than "monsterise", Monsters University only gets a pass mark thanks to nostalgic goodwill, some pretty good gags, and surprisingly strong ending.

15. Cars 3

A kids film about getting older and knowing when to retire? Who thought that was a good idea? In fact a lot of this film doesn't work - it just idles along being as boring as NASCAR racing. Except for the crash scene. So yeah, pretty much exactly like NASCAR racing. It finally finds the right gears by the third act, but its too late and no one cares. It's best character - Cruz - almost saves the film, and its throwbacks to the first movie are welcome, but Cars 3 is evidence its time to take this franchise to the wreckers.

16. Cars 2

Here we are. The bottom of the list. We all knew this was coming. Cars 2 is the only genuinely bad Pixar movie. A soulless spy movie spoof, its crimes are many. It's unfunny and uninspired, but worst of all, it takes one of the most annoying characters to ever grace a Pixar movie - Mater - and puts him front and centre in a dumb mistaken identity espionage plot. It's like North By Northwest, but with the automotive equivalent of Joe Dirt in the starring role. No one wants to see that. What few good ideas there are in the film are subsumed by a lack of laughs and heart.

Saturday, 17 June 2017

After watching the trailer for this low-brow comedy, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a remake of the 1998 black comedy Very Bad Things (if you're one of the people that stills remembers that forgotten Peter Berg film starring Christian Slater, Cameron Diaz, Jon Favreau, Jeremy Piven and Daniel Stern).

Both films have exactly the same high concept - a bachelor/bachelorette party goes horribly wrong when a stripper/prostitute is accidentally killed - and both are supposedly comedies.

As well as sharing the same set-up, Rough Night shares a fundamental problem with Very Bad Things - it struggles to nail its tone, making for an awkward watch.

Despite all this, Rough Night is not a gender-swapped remake of Very Bad Things and manages to fail all on its own, which is a shame considering the great cast and characters that get wasted in a futile search for laughs.

Rough Night's bachelorette is Johansson's Jess, who re-teams with her old college buds Alice (Bell), Frankie (Glazer) and Blair (Kravitz) for one final blow-out and long overdue catch-up before Jess' impending nuptials. Also along for the ride is Pippa (McKinnon), Jess' Aussie friend from a semester spent Down Under, and whose presence gets up the nose of Jess' supposed BFF Alice.

Also getting up their nose is a decent amount of cocaine, and after a solid session dancing and drinking the night away in the nightclubs of Miami, the girls retire to their rented beach house where one of them decides it would be a good idea to call a stripper. That's when the night gets rough.

The best example of how wrong this film gets its tone can be found in the scene where the stripper is accidentally killed. Much like the stripper's head, it lands with a thunk - it's neither funny nor shocking nor a necessary mix of the two. It's just awkward (and not funny-awkward).

Rough Night struggles to get its vibe back from then on, as the women try to clean up their mess and deal with what they've done. Unfortunately, just when the movie feels like it's hitting a rhythm, an unnecessarily dumb, annoying and largely pointless subplot involving Jess' fiance Peter (Downs) picks up pace and throws things off-kilter all over again. This side-story is easily the worst part of the film, and feels like it was flown in from a whole other movie that's even worse than Rough Night.

There are a couple of okay laughs here, but the whole thing is one ginormous waste of talent. Johansson is an excellent actor but seems a bit lost as the straight player amid the funny ladies (although she does drop one excellently delivered line about "wax-shaming") and McKinnon, who was a show-stealer in Ghostbusters, is as disappointing as her erratic Australian accent.

There is one excellent dramatic scene toward the end of the second act that demonstrates how disheartening this whole film is. After being bombarded with unfunny quips and situations for over an hour, the inevitable fight between the friends happens, with some very hard truths laid-out. In this moment, Johannsson, Glazer, Kravitz and Bell all excel, and you realise these are all great actors with great characters.

But they're stuck in a film that can't get its tone right. One minute it's utterly absurd, the next it's trying to be satirical, then its steamrolling through some dark territory in between bouts of slapstick, gross-out humour and attempts at edginess. Rough Night is all over the place and the few jokes it lands properly are mildly amusing as opposed to being out-and-out hilarious.

Its tonal miscalculation is too great of a problem to overlook, although some people may get a couple of silly laughs out of this very forgettable comedy.

Saturday, 10 June 2017

It used to be that a studio made a film and if it was good and people loved it, then the studio made another one.

Now studios don't make films - they make franchises. It doesn't matter if the first film was good or whether there was an appetite for more. So long as the film stumbles past the profit line and isn't a total pile of excrement, then the franchise convoy rolls on to the next film.

In recent weeks, there have been a few examples of this ploy of putting universe-building first and focused film-making second. Guy Ritchie's King Arthur, which was mooted as the launchpad for more films, died so hard at the box office (and critically) that it's unlikely we'll see more antics from the round table for some time.

It wasn't as bulletproof as Man Of Steel, which kicked off DC Comics "expanded universe" successfully despite being the first of three turkeys dished up in the franchise, with only fourth film Wonder Woman finally saving the day.

The difference between these two series is that the latter felt like something people had to see for themselves - no one wanted to miss out on Harley Quinn's cinematic debut, the birth of a new Superman, or the battle royale between Batman and Superman, even if they were forewarned all three films were a pile of crap. As for poor Arthur, hardly anyone under the age of 25 has even heard of King Arthur, let alone cares enough to want to see what turned out to be a bad movie.

And now we have The Mummy, which is a so-so horror-actioner starring Tom Cruise as a tomb raider cursed by a long-dead evil Egyptian princess (Boutella). On it's own, this film is nothing special - just another take on the old Universal monster movie (in fact this is the fourth series of Mummy movies and 14th film overall, not counting The Scorpion King spin-offs).

But this new Mummy movie has been widely touted as the kickstarter of Universal's new Dark Universe, which has a Bride Of Frankenstein remake (supposedly starring Javier Bardem) in the works, as well as retreads of The Invisible Man (supposedly starring Johnny Depp), Dracula, Wolfman, the Creature From The Black Lagoon and more.

Let's break this down for one moment.

Is The Mummy any good? Not really, but it's OK.

Is it good enough to launch a franchise? Absolutely not.

None of this would really matter if The Mummy's franchise-building didn't get in the way of it being a decent film.

On it's own, The Mummy regularly skirts close to being great. There are some very cool sequences, including an exhilarating plane crash, Cruise's character Nick Morton gradually losing his mind in the back alleys of London, some zombie jump-scares and chases (including one underwater), and an ambulance crash. It's predominantly enjoyable in a dumb way, and even offers some nice horror touches and atmospheres.

It also features a Cruise character that's close to being genuinely interesting and not just another rendition of Cruise's Interchangeable Action Man (see the M:I films, Jack Reacher 1 & 2, Oblivion, Night & Day). Morton is his attempt at a loveable rogue (and, initially, an Indiana Jones cypher), and is far more flawed and intriguing than any of his recent action creations.

But all the while, the film has one eye on the future, and this repeatedly drags it down. Much of this centres on Crowe's Dr Jekyll, who plays a surprisingly large role. There's a fairly major subplot going on with his character (no points for guessing what it involves) but at no point does any character say "what's his deal?". Instead, Jekyll is left to wander around spouting non-sequiturs and exposition about his secret monster-hunting organisation Prodigium. It's jarring, largely superfluous and continually derails the film's flow. It should be noted it's not a bad performance - it just smacks of a character being wedged into a film for no good reason as it detracts from the whole Mummy thing that's going on.

Outside of the franchise stuff, there are other flaws. Johnson's character pops up unnecessarily (and annoyingly) throughout the film, the Mummy's powers are seemingly limitless with new skills popping up all the time, and Wallis' headstrong archaeologist Jenny Halsey waivers between being good and frustrating (insane drinking game suggestion - drink every time Halsey says "Nick". You'll be dead halfway through Act II).

It feels like The Mummy could have been good. If Cruise's character was edgier, if Johnson wasn't in it, if Dr Jekyll wasn't in it, if the ending was bolder - all these things point to a solid Mummy that could have even topped Brendan Fraser's 1999 outing.

But instead, we get a pilot to a series that wouldn't be picked up by any network.

Tuesday, 6 June 2017

Fennell is a great reviewer. I always avoid reading or hearing other reviews before I write my own, but once I've finished giving my opinion, I often sought out Fennell's critique on the same film. We often agreed - which is nice and validating - but he was far more erudite and hilarious at expressing similar sentiments.

Upon hearing he was stepping aside as triple j's reviewer, and at the urging of several people (thanks for the encouragement, guys), I decided to join the throng and throw my hat into the ring.

The application was simple - record reviews for a minimum of one, maximum of three movies or TV shows from a list hand picked by Fennell. I can't remember the entire list but the choices included Get Out, La La Land, The Get Down, The Room, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, You Can't Ask That, and Paul Blart: Mall Cop.

To cut an increasingly long story short, I didn't get the gig. Congratulations to Amelia Navascues. I will be sure to check out her reviews when I finish my own.

For the first time since it launched the DC Extended Universe, the comic book powerhouse has released a good film. Sorry - not just a good film, but a great film.

It's absolutely ridiculous to think filmmakers could dish up three bad films in a franchise before getting one right. It used to be the other way around. Take for example, Transformers and Pirates Of The Caribbean - two series that have pretty much sucked aside for film #1. But no, this is the movie-watching world we live in now. Man Of Steel, Batman Vs Superman, and Suicide Squad made enough money and weathered the critical storm well enough to avoid sinking the DCEU before it got around to launching a decent movie.

As stated, Wonder Woman is more than just a decent movie. This is a character that has long deserved her day in the sun and now that the sun is out, it shines very brightly.

Gadot stars as Diana AKA the eponymous superhero - a princess of the Amazons, a race of demi-gods meant to protect mankind from the wrath of Ares, God of War. But with Ares long gone and humanity proving to be incorrigible, the Amazons have existed in solitude, quietly hiding from the real world.

But the arrival of a soldier (Pine) and the discovery that WWI is raging beyond her island home's idyllic waters awakens a desire inside Diana to do good and be a warrior like her people were intended to be, whether humanity deserves it or not.

This central theme - whether humanity deserves to be saved or, indeed, whether it can be saved from itself - is key to Wonder Woman's success. Man Of Steel swung for a deep thematic level and missed by dumbing itself down too far (and Batman Vs Superman just whacked itself in the head with the bat), but Wonder Woman hits a home run. Its themes are central to who Diana is, and who Pine's Steve Trevor is, and how they both fit into each other's world.

It makes both characters interesting and well-rounded. Diana's naivety and almost childlike examination of war, mankind and its idiocies make her a fascinatingly flawed and charmingly hilarious character, offsetting the indestructibility and infallibility that makes Superman such a bore in Man Of Steel. Trevor is equally intriguing, with Diana's presence giving him his own naivety as he realises the complexities of the war-torn world make no sense. Add to this the fact Gadot and Pine are great and have wonderful chemistry.

But it's this understanding of theme and character that make this the first DCEU success. On top of this, the dialogue is naturalistic and fits the characters, the movie doesn't talk down to its audience too much, and it sets about telling a good story in a strong, straight-forward manner. For some reason, this approach has eluded DC's brains trust until now.

Credit must go to Allan Heinberg's intelligent and traditional script, and Jenkins' solid yet powerful direction. The latter takes some of Zack Snyder's directorial tics but keeps them watchable, particularly in the fight sequences, which are masterfully done. Combining stellar stuntwork and some excellent CG, Jenkins delivers action scenes that never lose the audience or get lost in the edit.

The film is not perfect. There are some laboured moments, including the drawn-out conclusion, and some silliness that doesn't quite fly, although the script does do a pretty good job of making Wonder Woman's stranger elements (like the lasso of truth) work. Thankfully there is no sign of the invisible jet (or is there and I just didn't see it because it was invisible?).

There are also hints of what has come before. Its demi-god-among-men set-up is reminiscent of Thor, and its ragtag racially diverse wartime Dirty Half Dozen is very similar to Captain America's Howling Commandos. There's also something a bit Hellboy-ish about its German adversaries, particularly Dr Maru (Anaya).

But by and large Wonder Woman is its own thing. It feels fresh in an overcrowded market. In its own DCEU market, it boasts a better sense of humour than its predecessors but fits into the tone of the franchise. In fact, it sets the bar for the franchise in terms of tone, as well as pretty much everything else.

There are many great side effects of Wonder Woman being an awesome film. It means the DCEU might finally find its feet, and we can have some hope that Justice League and Aquaman will be good.

But best of all is the idea Hollywood may realise a female-led actioner or superhero movie can be a good thing. After Elektra and Catwoman, it felt like no one had the courage to try again, and if Wonder Woman had failed, it would have been curious to see if Marvel persevered with its upcoming Captain Marvel. Now that Wonder Woman is awesome, maybe we'll finally get a Black Widow film, or a She-Hulk film, or perhaps Harley Quinn could hold her own movie without having to be part of a team.

Set these broader issues aside though and one thing shines through - Wonder Woman is a damned good superhero movie, because it remembers to just be a damned good movie.